The Mann complaint is 24 pages long, and contains more than 100 paragraphs of allegations and assertions. The gravamen of the suit is that Mann, who is allegedly “well known for his work regarding global warming,” (which would seem to make him a public figure requiring him to demonstrate actual malice), was allegedly defamed by a blog post that accused him of “academic and scientific misconduct.” (Mann alleges that he had been previously investigated – and cleared). The original post at issue, by defendant Rand Simberg, is here; the other post at issue, by defendant Mark Steyn, is here. The complaint asserts claims for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Not to be outdone, the anti-SLAPP brief runs 60 pages, with more than 28 pages of that submission chronicling the factual background against which the allegedly defamatory publications were made and the suit brought. After that extended background section, the brief succinctly (and thankfully!) shows that, because the suit arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest (the blog post, commenting on the global warming debate and Mann’s role in it), the statute applies and requires dismissal of the suit unless Mann can show that he is likely to prevail on the merits. (The brief is also discussed by the Volokh Conspiracy here)

…

In a companion Rule 12(b)(6) memorandum, the defendants argue that, for all of the foregoing reasons, the suit should be dismissed. They further argue that Mann has failed to allege facts to support a finding that they acted with actual malice and, instead, offers only conclusory allegations that they acted “maliciously” or “with actual malice,” and that, for this additional reason, the complaint must be dismissed.

Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm.

Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.

“Media Trackers got their facts wrong. Jodi Solomon Speakers was NOT involved in setting up the speaking engagement for Dr. Mann at the Sports Turf Managers Association (SMTA). We log in every call and email that comes into our office, and there is no record that Media Trackers was ever in touch with us. If they claim otherwise, they did so by misrepresenting themselves to us.”

[I think perhaps the way Media Trackers is structured, as independent investigators, they are looking for the wrong phone call. – Anthony]

Dr. Mann also writes:

…indeed Jodi Solomon Speakers Bureau does typically negotiate a speakers fee for engagements they book for me.

But in reality, I am doing the SMTA event pro bono (other than travel expenses) and Ms. Carducci’s claim that I am receiving 10K for the event is pure fiction.

Some say the judge is in Mann’s pocket. This will be a test of that. If this is not a case in which the defendants deserve protection from SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation then the law is useless.

I will be a bit sad if this gets dismissed… all that juicy discovery… hopefully Tim Ball’s lawsuit will produce said discovery and put a huge nail in the public figurehead/propaganda of global warming.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition

As evidence that Mann et al are attempting to “censor, intimidate, and silence critics” see this, from an open letter written by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

… the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

Why would you even ask for dismissal unless what you could gain – discovery – wasn’t what you wanted anyway? In fact, if that isn’t what they wanted, why not just go kiss his butt and drive on, never looking back? I don’t understand this action at all. Then again, when it comes to “the legal arena” and what they laughingly refer to as “justice,” there is far more room for NOT understanding than understanding anyway, since nothing any longer relies on logic and facts.

Have you ever walked the night alone
Like a Mann against the world?
No one takes your side,
A boat against the tide.
When your faith is shaken,
You start to break,
And your heart can’t find the words.
Tossed upon the sand,
I give you a Mann against the world.
All the people cheer till the end is near
Then the hero takes a fall.
They’ll drag you through the mud.
You’re only flesh and blood.
Oh I’ve walked the path from dark to light
And have yet to come to terms.
Alone I take my stand,
I’m only a Mann against the world.
(Lyrics by PETERIK, JAMES M/SULLIVAN, FRANK/JAMISON, JIMI: “Man against the world” performed by Survivor)

I will be a bit sad if this gets dismissed… all that juicy discovery… hopefully Tim Ball’s lawsuit will produce said discovery …

Even if the case is not dismissed by an Anti-SLAPP ruling, I don’t think there will be much discovery.

Mann’s lawyers are arguing that describing the “hockey stick” as “fraudulent” is an accusation of “academic fraud”. There would only be a need for “juicy” discovery if Steyn et al went along with that and attempted to prove “academic fraud”. I don’t think that will happen.

Another disappointing result. I said the day that mann threatened to file that an anti-slapp would be the outcome but I didn’t think that they would move to dismiss. I was hoping he’d be forced to finally have that day in court that he never seems so fond to reach.

With this and Heartland seemingly unwilling to pursue Gleick it’s all a bit of a damp squib.

WOuldn’t it be better to see this through? This gets dismissed and it will look like some sort of “legal technicality.” Certainly Mann will claim that. I understand that the defendants are in some jeopardy, but they’d be doing the world a great favor if this could get to the discovery process.

Given Al Gore has excited the scene stage left with bags full of oil money, two weeks ago. The MET climbs down and revises the long range forecast downward and acknowledges 16 years of no warming. The New York Times is dismantling its environmental desk. Hansen climbs down and acknowledges no warming….

If I was Mann I would be looking for a place to retire outside the USA NOW. His lawyers are paid for by someone else not him. Any time now that funding can get yanked and I would not be surpirsed if Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli might not find another way to go after him again.

With his personality Mikey has not made friends and he might just find himself the goat.

No matter the merits either side mayperceive, it is only prudent and professional to seek dismissal. Civil court can be both forum of discovery as well as graveyard of truth. Getting a SLAPP ruling against Mann shows how petty and threadbare his complain is. It is not a ‘technicality’. If the motion is granted, it shows that once again Mann is making claims that do not hold up under scrutiny.

So you lose a bet and your choices are:
1) Sue Mark Steyn.
2) Fight a bear barehanded.
3) Retrieve a salmon from a great white’s stomach.
________________________________________________
Duuuude!!! Before I fight the bear, what would I have won?

….With this and Heartland seemingly unwilling to pursue Gleick it’s all a bit of a damp squib.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heartland IS pursuing Gleick unfortunately they have to get the US government (District Attorney’s office) to agree to press the criminal charges and good luck with that.

Mann’s lawyers do not seem to be very bright. They could have easily filed the lawsuit in a forum that does not have a SLAPP statute and avoided the possibility of being on the hook for the defendant’s attorneys fees. Moreover, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss reads as if its a elementary primer on U.S. defamation law. Granting the motion to dismiss is a no-brainer. I do not see any plausible arguments with which Mann’s attorney could reply. It will be fun to see what he comes up with.

What happened to Tim Ball’s case in Canada? I believe he went the route of not saying that Mann is a public figure but rather that his statement was true. And it wasn’t just that Mann is molesting data, but that Mann belongs in the State Pen not Penn State.

One of the more persuasive arguments in the brief comes next, when the defendants argue that, because the blog post links to the factual material that it references, there can be NO defamation because the reader is free to consider the source material and draw his/her own conclusions.
Finally, argues the defendants, the language and context of the blog post would not be understood by a reasonable reader as accusing Mann of an actual crime, but rather would be understood as protected hyperbole.

In a nice touch, the defendants cite from Mann’s own book – where he allegedly likened the climate debate to “WAR” as an example of hyperbole because “reasonable readers would understand that Mann is not engaged in a literal ‘war.’”

In a companion Rule 12(b)(6) memorandum, the defendants argue that, for all of the foregoing reasons, the suit should be dismissed. They further argue that Mann has failed to allege facts to support a finding that they acted with actual malice and, instead, offers only conclusory allegations that they acted “maliciously” or “with actual malice,” and that, for this additional reason, the complaint must be dismissed

@ZootCadillac
>With this and Heartland seemingly unwilling to pursue Gleick it’s all a bit of a damp squib

Did you see the comment from Heartland saying it was up to the prosecutors, not Heartland? I refer to criminal prosecution. If that fails completely (because of the prosecutors) Heartland will institute a civil case. That is how I understood their statement to WUWT.

No, the point of SLAPP is to encourage “public participation”. The more cases that are thrown out due to SLAPP the better, it should lead to people not suing others for their opinions and forcing legal costs on them.

Mann is a public figure. Under Australian law this fact alone means it will be more difficult for him to overcome the “public interest” test in his affairs.

There is a dispute over the validity of his academic work already on the public record and there are now public records of potential collusion to “fabricate” a “preferred” result via the climategate emails.

Unless he can establish malicious intent it will be difficult for him to establish that the right to fair comment over a public figure involved in a debate of public interest should be set aside in favour of some unsubstantiated damages.

He is like a politician complaining that an opponent has questioned his policies and therefore he has been defamed.

Personally I say “good luck with that”.

Public figures simply have to realise they sacrifice most of their rights when they choose to become a public figure.

Much back slapping and rejoicing,thing is none of the lack of warming,or the Mets backtracking nor Manns case will ever be aired on any MSM.Until that starts to happen i suggest we hold off the celebration and victory parade

Who knows if one day you’re gonna be an honest Mann?
Who knows if you’ll work and fight to reach the frontline seat?
But right now you don’t need to care or think about your life goals
You find someone to do the dirty job while you stretch your legs

‘Cause you’re so much clever
You’re so much smarter
Why waste your time on working
If i’s so easy to lie?

So you say, scratch my back
Scratch my back, scratch my back
Scratch my back

……
As evidence that Mann et al are attempting to “censor, intimidate, and silence critics” see this, from an open letter written by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

… the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.”
————————————————–

Would he not have to prove that the emails were ‘fraudulently’ obtained. Currently, It is not certain as to whether they were leaked or stolen/hacked. The UK Police have already given up on this so he would have to prove they were fraudulently obtained in each individual case.

The CRU have acknowledged that the emails were genuine and adds the possibility – no probability that while one site goes down another 10 will go up.

Also, the letter is worded as a request, not an order. So until the source is identified they can not claim fraud.

@Gail wrote: “Heartland IS pursuing Gleick unfortunately they have to get the US government (District Attorney’s office) to agree to press the criminal charges and good luck with that.”

OK, but what about a civil action? I never thought this had legs criminally speaking. But a civil action resulting in a judgment against along with a monetary award would be a nice victory it seems to me. Surely by stealing documents, and then actually forging one up to cast Heartland in a bad light has to be actionable, no?

They are not only moving to dismiss, they are asking for legal fees. If the judge dismisses the case and grants NRO and CEI legal fees, that will be a huge victory. I don’t think it will happen, but if the anti-SLAPP law is applied correctly, it should. This exactly the kind of lawsuit the law was designed to prevent. To give the law teeth, you need to grant the defendants the right to recover legal fees.

Public figures simply have to realise they sacrifice most of their rights when they choose to become a public figure.

=======

Whilst I agree, I have a query.
When do you become a ‘public figure’?

Queen Elizabeth II – my sovereign lady – is, plainly, a public figure [PF]. Stamps alone, her image has been reproduced many bllions of times. Coins. Notes . . . .
Elected Politicians, surely, are also PFs.
Publishing a paper in a well-known journal?
MD of a FTSE/DowJones/CAC40 company – sure.
Journalist?
By-lined journalist (?)
Sports star [Superbowl/Olympic Medal/Test Cricketer] – probably. I think.
Blogger??
A Contributor – as am I – to a blog like – say – WUWT??
Or to a less well-read blog???
Appearing on CCTV [which is ubiquitous in London] more than once?????

I raise a range of possibilities, but have no clear definition in my mind.
My idea of PF excludes most of the ‘Celebrities’ on Celebrity Turkey Stuffing (or whatever the latest celeb show is called]. But I don’t watch much TV.

I consider the delightful Mihael Mann to be a Public Figure as i would Mother Theresa or Silvio Berlusconi [balance, you see, balance!].

Moreover, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss reads as if its a elementary primer on U.S. defamation law.

I think that part of the motion is very good. What I didn’t care for in the motion were the parts that disputed the evidence for global warming. While that may warm our hearts, I don’t think it should have been included in the motion. First, because I don’t think it’s relevant to the legal issues involved; second, because the judge is probably a firm believer in global warning, who may view the motion less objectively because of those sections. I think they should have taken the opposite tact: they should have explicitly said, it doesn’t matter which side is correct on the issue of global warming, the libel laws and 1st Amendment are on the side of the defendants.

The US legal system almost as disfunctional as the US political system so I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting anything sensible to happen. This court case has scarcely begun and these are only the routine preliminary motions. Unfortunately in the US court cases often drag on for years with millions spent on legal costs and indeed a determined litigant can postpone a decision almost indefinitely. Judges are typically reluctant to rule in a fashion which ends the legal procedings, which means these cases drag on beyond all reason. The most important factor in determining the outcome is usually not the law or the facts but the sizes of the wallets involved and the willingness to empty them. Note that in the US the loser is very seldom ordered to pay the winner’s costs. Essentially it is combat by wallet and regardless of the outcome the lawyers are the only ones who really win.

Defense attorneys will usually seek to get a case dismissed on broad grounds. It’s an indictment of the plaintiff when the case is dismissed rather than settled and it avoids the crap shoot of a jury verdict.
I agree that a SLAPP dismissal is a useful warning to people like Mann and I hope it will also get fees for the defendants.

I have found that psychological projection is the common feature of all progressives.

They are cooking the books, So YOU must be cooking your books too.
They fear their own self-control, so YOU must be disarmed.
They believe a woman’s life should revolve around sex, so YOU are a woman hater.
They know their ethics are lacking, so YOU must be dishonest.
They believe certain minorities can not act as adults must be treated as children are, so YOU are a racist.
They know they deep inside they are inadequate mental lightweights in over their heads, so YOU must be an idiot.

Great news from Scotland! 12 years ago I was part of the money grabbing wind industry that fed this monstrous global warming scam. But even then I wondered by the anti-wind groups didn’t just get together and lobby politicians.

Now Scotland is climate luny central with complete idiots advising government who are signing us up to “world beating” targets making us … as I call it “the banana republic of renewables”.

So, I’m over the moon to finally see a group “Scotland Against Wind. I’ve joined … or at least I signed up a webform which took £10 from me … but having met with the people I’m thoroughly convinced this is a good idea and would urge everyone else to join up.

And it doesn’t rain but it pours because they are forecasting a big dollop of snow this weekend for the UK!

Reminds me of when I needed to make a point in the 1980’s, about John Kenneth (what’s the Frequency Kenneth?) Galbraith. I called Harvard Speaker’s department. I found out that JKG charged a mere $3900 for a speech. I also found out (from a rather “matter of fact” representative) that, “Dr. Galbraith’s flight is paid by the people requesting the speech, it is to be FIRST CLASS. His accomadations are expected to be the same..” Hum, pretty direct that.

By probing the schedule, I was able to find that he spoke about 50 times a year.

Let’s see! 50 * 4000 = $200,000 a year. Not bad for a “full professor” paid $70K a year at the time.

(By the way, with inflation, that put JGK into the $500,000 and above category. Guess it takes a straight face to be a “hyper liberal” and “just for the common guy”, when you make that sort of “cha-ching”. I suspect, the straight face on MANN is of a similar like to JGK’s back then. Somehow the “Rick, GAMBLING here?” scene from Cassablanca comes to mind!)

pokerguy says:
January 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
In a civil action, Heartland would have to show damages suffered and it is doubtful that Gliek’s shenanigans damaged anybody but Gliek. Entering a civil action is fraught with peril for all concerned and should be a last resort.

@Gail wrote: “Heartland IS pursuing Gleick unfortunately they have to get the US government (District Attorney’s office) to agree to press the criminal charges and good luck with that.”

OK, but what about a civil action?…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They want to hammer on the criminal charges first since the civil suit would lower their chances of bring criminal charges. (I think they were hoping for better luck after the election)

“public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). “

If you go by my local TV station (Calgary, city of over a million), a Public Figure is someone seen daily on the news by thousands. Then again, to them a video “Going Viral” only requires a few thousand views in a month, so their definitions can’t be trusted…

If you go by any of the bands I used to work with, they become a Public Figure when they show up to play somewhere and someone recognizes them (even though they are unloading instruments from their van, which all have their band name stickers attached).

To me, it’s not about Public Figuredom… it’s about Iconism. For example, The Beatles were icons of the 60s music scene, ditto Elvis for the 50s, and nobody can deny that the Hockey Stick has been a major icon of AGW alarmism.

And just like every other Icon, the image and the reality don’t match. They’re carefully CRAFTED to evoke an emotional response, and the people who craft an Icon are well aware that they are creating a fiction. Heck. I’ve worked with many “famous” people over the years, and as a result I have absolutely NO respect for anyone “famous”, and very little respect for sound bites or carefully crafted imagery of any sort.

We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these [Climategate] documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

Yeah, we’re sorry you can’t take the truth, Mr. Mann. We’re sorry those documents and emails show you’d go to great lengths to hide and distort your work, pursue and destroy the careers of all scientists that don’t slobber all over you and agree with your every “scientific” whim, and that you’d commit illegal actions to further your agenda. We’re sorry to have shown the world professional skullduggery that’s so embarrassing you’d use lawsuits to cover your sorry ass.

Does being sorry for your sorry behavior mean this all ends in a draw? Gosh, I hope so, Mr. Mann. On the other hand, I believe it’s time you spent some time in the Big House for destroying your own career–just for starters. It would only be fitting, you know. And then there’s that matter of all that grant money you “stole” from taxpayers… And all those other people whose careers you destoryed… And all those poor people unable to survive with fuel and food now being so much more expensive and scarce because of your misguided “science”…

Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You just cannot make this stuff up! Air conditioning specialists? Seriously? They are going to pay someone $10,000 to tell them that they should be upping their sizing estimates to clients by some whopping amount? They’ll run right out to their clients and tell them they need to increase every quote they have out there because they just went to a seminar with a $10,000 per day world recognized climate scientist (insert indirect mention of Nobel prize of course) and the customer is going to need a lot more cooling than they thought. This ought to pay for itself in…..the first 3 minutes the following business day.

In the US, a public figure is one who 1) has achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that he has become a public figure for all purposes and contexts, or 2) has voluntarily assumed a central role in a particular controversy, such that he becomes a public figure for that limited purpose and controversy. The Supreme Court has indicated that a person might become a public figure through no effort of his own, but considered that circumstance to be exceedingly rare. (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)). By either definition, Michael Mann in a public figure, and must prove that the defendants knew that the statements were false, or published those statements with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity. Reckless disregard is interpreted as a showing that the defendant actually entertained serious doubts as to the truthfulness. Merely calling someone names, or acting in spite or hatred is not enough. Michael Mann has a high bar to reach, if the case is not dismissed first.

I think that part of the motion is very good. What I didn’t care for in the motion were the parts that disputed the evidence for global warming.

To define Mann as limited purpose public figure there must be a ‘public controversy’ which Mann has deliberately inserted himself into.

I.E. I can’t talk bad about a Newton unless I believe gravity is something other 9.8m/s2. In which case I can say ‘Newton is an ignorant fool to insist that gravity is 9.8m/s2….gravity is clearly 1m/s2′.

An supporter of Mann said that he “gets nothing” for all his work. What about his books?? And now this. 10K? Speaking a couple times a month, combined with the other things, is enough to make him richer than the 1% he rails against. Both Mann and Gleick are Berkeley graduates, and they’re both lefltist radicals in warmist clothing.

With a budget of only about $5M, CEI won’t be able to afford the cost and risk of going to trial without additional backing.

According to Wikipedia, National Review has a circulation of about 150,000 ($1.25 per issue, $5.00 and depends on donors for the rest of its funding. They appear to be more vulnerable than CEI.

These lawsuits appear to represent a serious problem for these organizations, whether or not Mann has a reasonable chance of winning. If Mann’s expenses were paid by some of Al Gore’s investors or by Gore himself (worth >$100,000,000), they could be hoping pressure will produce a settlement. An offer to settle a lawsuit out-of-court for less than it would cost to defend oneself in court can look attractive. Say $5,000 and an apology.

As for discovery, Mann presumably has thrown away all of the damaging material that is under his personal control. Will email records at UVA and PSU be accessible? Does anyone expect FIOA to release any new damaging material?

Man Bearpig wrote at Jan 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Re: Legal threat from CSLDF and PEER to sue all bloggers that quote CRU emails.

Would he not have to prove that the emails were ‘fraudulently’ obtained. Currently, It is not certain as to whether they were leaked or stolen/hacked. The UK Police have already given up on this so he would have to prove they were fraudulently obtained in each individual case.

The CRU have acknowledged that the emails were genuine and adds the possibility – no probability that while one site goes down another 10 will go up.

Also, the letter is worded as a request, not an order. So until the source is identified they can not claim fraud.

It is not “he” (i.e. Mann) who issued this threat. It is the two organisations backing his litigation who did so. He may be in full agreement with this, but it is an important distinction to make. As I demonstrated in the article, PEER’s parent organisation is funded by George Soros (among others) who gave them $720,000 in 2006 principally for James “Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice”. So, PEER’s patrons may be the “supporters in higher places” that Mann refers to in a 2003 email.

Regarding your other points -yes to all. The “CRU have acknowledged that the emails were genuine” so for PEER to call the actions of “all activists, bloggers, and other journalists” as “malicious and fraudulent” for blogging about them (or otherwise disseminating them) is itself fraudulent.

They have no intention of suing all those bloggers, many of whom will not examine the finer points as you do. It is just a transparent attempt to intimidate. The current defamation case is part of a larger campaign. That’s why I think PEER’s letter is a good example for Steyn’s lawyers to cite in support of their anti-SLAPP motion.

Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You just cannot make this stuff up! Air conditioning specialists? Seriously? They are going to pay someone $10,000 to tell them that they should be upping their sizing estimates to clients by some whopping amount? They’ll run right out to their clients and tell them they need to increase every quote they have out there because they just went to a seminar with a $10,000 per day world recognized climate scientist (insert indirect mention of Nobel prize of course) and the customer is going to need a lot more cooling than they thought. This ought to pay for itself in…..the first 3 minutes the following business day.

Actually HVAC contractors are impacted by standards on indoor CO2 concentrations. I was at a presention by the HVAC specialist for a building my family owns and he mentioned studies linking indoor CO2 to cognitive degradation. I called BS on that, mentioning the US navy experience with CO2 concentrations on nuclear subs. However, in an indoor environment with lots of people, you can take CO2 as an inverse proxy for oxygen levels, which will definitely degrade cognition if it gets below 18% — see here . The system the HVAC specialist was pitching included CO2 monitors and continuous recording of same. In any case, regulatory jurisdictions are starting to impose indoor CO2 level standards, so it is not totally out of line for an HVAC trade group to engage someone like Michael Mann as a speaker. A waste of money of course, but not totally out of line.

Maybe one of the readers from Oz, New South Wales to be specific, will share with us a photo of one of the roadside billboards recommending that you buckle your seat belt when driving and starring a gentleman who bears an astonishing resemblance to our Mike. It actually could be Mike, in a first dip into his next career as a highway safety advocate.

Mann is a Federal employee, is he not? Has he gotten approval for the speaker fees from his OGC? Has he disclosed these fees as income on his annual OGC disclosure? If not, he is in clear conflict of interest with his federal position. I was a federal employee at the National Science Foundation and I’m pretty sure that I would not have been allowed to give speeches about my work there at $10K a pop,and, if I had not disclosed those fees, I would have been in a great deal of trouble. I would have lost my job. Why is Mann so special?

Heartland IS pursuing Gleick unfortunately they have to get the US government (District Attorney’s office) to agree to press the criminal charges and good luck with that.

Heartland may not want to agressively pursue this. Home addresses of staff were revealed by Gleick and their safety will come first. Heartland may fear the Streisand Effect.

———————–
DaveG wrote:

In a nice touch, the defendants cite from Mann’s own book – where he allegedly likened the climate debate to “WAR” as an example of hyperbole because “reasonable readers would understand that Mann is not engaged in a literal ‘war.’”

I think any similar examples that anyone can find, help the defendants case.

———————–
ZT wrote:

What happened to Mann’s case against the M4GW team? Does that not say that Mann was ‘making up data the old hard way’ ‘what you did was such a crime’ (etc.).

He folded.

———————–
Scottish Sceptic says:

So, I’m over the moon to finally see a group “Scotland Against Wind.

Your link leads to “Scotland Against Spin” (a good pun). “Scotland Against Wind” sounds a bit King-Canute-esque or as if they are protesting against over-consumption of haggis and beer. Just joking. They have my support and I wish them well.

No surprise St Gore came in at over 100,000 for the same thing will Dr Doom pulls in 7 figuers for his public ‘promotion ‘ work .

There is little chance of any court case , for can anyone really see Mann dealing with critical review under oath rather than friendly preplanned review that he has become over used too?
Which is a shame , as the chances are given all we know about him , that he would blow up big style under adversarial investigation. His massive ego could not let him do otherwise.

Back years ago vaunted Christian television network mogul Jerry Falwell was ridiculed by Hustler pornography empire owner Larry Flynt in an ad that suggested he had relations with his own mother. In an out-house or outdoor privy.

Falwell sued: and sued for nearly the identical things Mann is. He claimed his feelings were hurt and that Flynt had tried to damage his means of making a living which was preaching the good word of repentence and therefore freedom from the grime of vice.

Hustler’s Flynt was a publicity and legal genius. Raised in some mostly ghetto slum he had come up the hard way running topless dance clubs and the sort: he came out and said that not only did he actually break every individual law recited in the complaint but he named why he did it.

He said he tried to threaten Falwell’s means of making a living because Falwell was using his public pulpit to wipe out HIS making a living, which was legal in the United States, and that Falwell had NO RIGHT to try to rub him out of business.

He said he wrote what he did with malice: aforethought: because he hated Falwell for doing what Falwell did.

He said that he hoped greatly Falwell suffered public disrespect and embarrassment because Falwell had started the fight on his own, without provocation from Flynt.

On and on. You really should have been there, Flynt went on to WIN that case in the SUPREME COURT.

He said Falwell was a public figure who put himself forth into the controversy of morality and public morality on his own when he bought a television network and went out on stage in public every sunday.

The entire thing is folks, nearly a SPOT ON reproduction of the Mann vs. National Review case and I can tell you now, there never was, never will be, and we’re all going to see, is not a way in heck, Mann is going to do anything but pay for defense costs.

And then the people who have been claiming Mann is a lying, vicious crook, can start suing him out of existence along with all his friends.

There’s a reason western bureaucracy keeps on ticking after taking a licking. It’s because revenge is so well served, years late and ice cold.

This keeps things from erupting into so called ‘hot wars’ where there’s actual gunfire. The wheels grind slow, but mark it: your children will all be writing reports on how the criminopaths took over Federal funding and went berserk blowing billions in illegally procured funds.

Is it true that such a dismissal means the defendants are exempt from counter-suit? It seems that either dismisal could result in a counter on the grounds that the original suit is a nuisance. Legal folks in the US care to add their thoughts?

@all. Yes, I understand the intricacies of the HI case and that they have been holding off so as not to interfere with any public prosecution but as it’s also clear that the authorities have no will to prosecute Gleick then I say again that HI seem unwilling to pursue Gleick. they can, and should be after him in the civil court, win or lose or they simply look ineffectual, especially as ( and I may recall this wrong as links on fakegate.com are no longer there ) they solicited monies for a legal fund at the time and i know it must have happened because I distinctly recall contacting HI on a number of occasions to seek assurances that any donations to such a fund would be used expressly for that purpose. I didn’t get an answer so I chose not to donate more.

The public prosecutor will not touch it and HI won’t pursue it instead going down the route of playing victim in the hope that is enough. It’s not, people will see it as an admission that Gleick did no wrong, however untrue that is. Alarmists will certainly use it as a sign of vindication.

Steyn filed his motion to dismiss a while ago. – and likely CEI and Steyn’s motions will suffer the same fate, for good or ill. So if CEI wins, expect no discovery. And this is a good thing – because it means the case will not get to a D.C. jury. D.C. went heavily for Gore for President, and I wouldn’t trust a D.C. jury to rule against a Green icon for a bunch of conservatives. That’s why Mann wasn’t stupid to sue there…because if he can get past the judge to a jury, he’s got about the best chance of soaking his opponents for heavy damages as he would anywhere. (Given that Vermont probably doesn’t have jurisdiction…)

I’m personally most interested in the “actual malice” arguments – because as Steyn’s brief pointed out, the only evidence for “actual malice” cited in the complaint is the fact that government panels, Green groups, etc. all “cleared” Mann. As Steyn’s lawyers said:

“Just because an investigatory panel says that something is so—even if that panel is convened by the government or a public university—does not mean that private citizens have to accept it as the Gospel. Instead, there cannot be liability unless there is ‘sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth’ of their publication…Given the CEI Defendants’ strong views on inadequacy of the Penn State and NSF investigations, Mann’s allegation that they read those reports does not suggest that they entertained any subjective doubt as to their criticism of Mann and his research that could be proven…”

As I commented at Lucia’s, the opposite contention creates a “backdoor sedition act” — the government can’t make it directly unlawful to criticize its “favorite sons” – but it can appoint panels to “investigate” and “clear” them, so that whoever does criticize them thereafter is opened up to expensive lawsuits. (“We said he’s innocent, so shut up or get sued. Don’t you dare doubt the government when it says he’s pure!”)

more soylent green! says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:11 am
In legalese, nothing actually exists until proven in a court of law.
======
Were it but so in science. All too often we hear scientists talking about what they believe as though it was facts.

“Many believe that CO2 causes global warming ” is a true statement. “CO2 causes global warming” may or may not be a true statement, and it thus belief (not fact) to say it is true.

“Just because an investigatory panel says that something is so—even if that panel is convened by the government or a public university—does not mean that private citizens have to accept it as the Gospel.”

Isn’t this exactly the point that was being made in a rather colorful way by the defendiants by comparing the Mann investigation to the Penn State child molesting investigation? Would not all readers understand that an analogy was intended, not a literal allegation of child molesting?

Although I am not an expert in libel or defamantion law, as a lawyer who has read the briefs it is hard for me to believe that this lawsuit was filed in good faith. It seems to me that the Motions to dismiss are based on straightforward application law that any law student would know. The suggestion above to take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Flynt v. Falwell case is a good one to illustrate how difficult it is for a public figure to prevail in this type of lawsuit.

Although it is likely premature to raise on the pleadings the problems with the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is interesting to note the elements that plaintiff must prove to prevail on such a claim even aside from the 1st amendment issues articulated in the Flynt v Falwell case. To prevail, the plaintiff must demostrate all of the following:
1.Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2.Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3.Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and
4.Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct. In the Flynt case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Falwell could not prevail even though Flynt had falsely asserted that Falwell had engaged in incestous sexual acts with his promiscuous mother.

The defendants conduct in this case seems to be quite consistent with the type of banter that frequently is used in heated political debates and hardly constitutes “extreme and outrageous” conduct. A textbook example of “extreme and outrage” conduct would be intentionally and falsely informing a young mother that her infant child had just been killed in an automobile accident. Moreover, the type of proof usually required to show that the defendant suffered “severe emotional distress” are bills from a treating psychologist or psychiatrist and time missed from employment. Just being “pissed off” is not sufficient. Is Mann really that thin skinned?

This is funny: now Mikey Mann is upset that anyone is talking about his speaking fees and grants, but notice all the pea-and-thimble stuff that does not actually contradict anything stated in the MediaTracker article:

Mann may or may not be doing a particular talk pro bono, but that does not contradict the article.

Anyway, speaker fees are common so it’s not a ‘smear’ to talk about them, but the public has a right to ask if Mann benefits from his Activism.

At least Mann can always ask Peter Gleick and Kelly Anspaugh for character references — they showed up rathe quickly to comment at the link above. Mikey has a nice little fan club of dubious characters.

Thanks for your contributions to Heartland’s Legal Defense Fund. I hope you understand that one can incur legal expenses, and in significant amounts, even if criminal and civil actions have not yet taken place. That is the case with Heartland, and Legal Defense Fund contributions — from many concerned friends of Heartland — were applied to those expenses.

Gail Combs says:They want to hammer on the criminal charges first since the civil suit would lower their chances of bring criminal charges. (I think they were hoping for better luck after the election)

At this point, they have absolutely no chance of any criminal action being taken (and we all know it), so they SHOULD pursue civil action. It’s all they’ve got left.

Well, guess what? I’ve already received an email reply from the CEO of STMA stating, “… thank you for bringing this to our attention. We inadvertently abbreviated the information in our very condensed schedule; all announcements of Dr. Mann and his introduction has the correct wording as defined by the Nobel Committee.”

Thank you most kindly for addressing some of my concerns. It’s not the forum I would have chosen but I’ve not had answers in the past via other means.

First, may i say I’m a UK citizen. I share little of you politics and probably understand less than that. I do support, and will continue to support your stance on the climate change issues even though I suspect much of it is born from a free market advocacy as well as a position taken from an understanding of the science. Just so happens we meet on these issues but perhaps coming from different angles.

Jim, I know you have no chance of a case being brought via the public prosecutor regarding Gleick and I know that a civil case would be expensive but I feel that if the allegations against Gleick are true, and they appear to be, then you must pursue a civil case. I’d be happy to help finance that and I’m sure I’m not alone. We may not be the rich but there are many of us.

I don’t know if it can be won. You have taken legal advice. If that advice has told you outright to avoid a case then please tell your supporters. We have felt bereft of news whilst being given platitudes.

Don’t let Gleick walk from this. Find a way to bring this to a court and let it be decided there. Find the money, have the courage of your convictions. Pointing the finger to a small but already converted audience will serve no purpose.

Twenty plus years ago
I can still remember how Jim Hansen made his pitch with guile
He said if CO2 advanced
That temps would rise and seas advance
And we would be like Venus in a while
Then Michael Mann took a sliver
And the Hockey Stick did deliver
Catastrophe near the doorstep
Al Gore on truth did step
It seems that all they did is cry
About CO2 and melting ice
But something told me it’s all lies
When what they said did not arise
{Refrain}
Lies, lies, man-made warming lies!
Drove my chevy to the levee
But the batteries caught fire
And them good old boys were modelin’ gas in the sky
Chantin’ Grant cash and we’ll tell you just why
Tomarrow’ll be the day that we die
Verse 2
Did you make the Stick go Up
And do you fear CO2 above
If Jim Hansen tells you so ……. (Far as I got)

Shameless Peter Gleick cites figure from Heartland doc which he obtained under false pretences. So much for his pretended remorse in the Huffington Post last year. See his comment on Heartland paying Fred Singer:

Zoot:@Jim Lakely (Heartland Institute)
Don’t let Gleick walk from this. Find a way to bring this to a court and let it be decided there. Find the money, have the courage of your convictions. Pointing the finger to a small but already converted audience will serve no purpose.

Jim, I’m with Zoot. The reason the crimes of the AGW establishment are getting so outrageous is because nobody stands up to them. They’re allowed to lie, defraud, bully, and otherwise force their ideology on the world, and nobody opposes them in any meaningful way.

What’s that about “good men doing nothing?”

Take the fight to them. You’re not going to get any justice out of our so-called “justice” department. The only viable remaining option is civil.

And, @TonyG, I’m with you on this, and have been politely and firmly been hammering Heartland and others about going on the offense about the ‘fossil fuels industry funding accusation’ against them. Everything I’ve found indicates it is the weakest facet of AGW, which is what prompted me to write my guest post at WUWT back in June 2011, “The End is Near for Faith in AGW” ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/ ). I hit paydirt every time I dig into it. I wish I could afford a staff to dig harder, the Gleick/Desmogblog connection is as troubling as it gets.

@Alan Watt, CD
That’s a mighty stretch of logic you’re offering the HVAC association. Unless your supplier was offering tree ring proxy sensors for monitoring indoor CO2 levels I can’t imagine anything relevant the 10k+ spent on Mann would have brought to the table. It looks more like publicity for a timely cause, seeking to stamp a boring niche conference with social importance.
Reminds me of the talk my local city gov’t bought a couple of years ago: Jeremy Rifkin was hired to do his “Hydrogen Economy Rock ‘n Soul Revue” to the Council. Imagine the sea change to our community of 180,000 his fees reaped: yep, I’m sure all of you now recognize Parma as the hydrogen economy’s central hub, now that the whole world has given up money in favor of H2!
These speakers are a luxurious expense that makes the spenders feel like they’re saving the world. Too bad the money forked out is usually not their own.

@Bill Marsh
Mann is an employee of Penn State University and as such will have, I imagine, pretty wide flexibility wrt outside speaking engagements. Universities love the prestige popular speakers bring their institutions, so it is probably encouraged rather than inhibited.